coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Wieluń, Poland.
5.  On 1 September 1994 the applicant’s husband died in a road accident. He worked as a driver and was killed when a truck in front of him, carrying an inflammable substance, exploded.
6.  On 27 February 1996 the applicant, on behalf of herself and her three children, lodged a civil action with the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). She claimed compensation for her husband’s death and directed her action, inter alia, against the company that owned the truck and the “Warta” Insurance Company.
7.  On 9 October 1996 the trial court held the first hearing.
8.  Subsequently, hearings were held once a year on 8 December 1997, 27 September 1998 and 26 November 1999. In 2000 no hearings were held.
9.  On 19 December 2001 and 13 February 2002 the trial court held hearings. On the latter date the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 18 August 2003. Subsequently, the court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared. The court scheduled two hearings but they were adjourned.
10.  On 24 October 2004 the applicant lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about a breach of the right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. She relied on the 2004 Act. On 22 December 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible. Some delays were caused by the actions of the defendant. The court finally held that the case was complex and required the taking of expert evidence.
11.  In May and June 2005 the experts submitted their opinions to the court.
12.  On 20 September 2005 the Kalisz Regional Court gave judgment. It allowed the action and granted the applicant compensation. The defendant lodged an appeal against the judgment.
13.  On 19 June 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal held a hearing at which it dismissed the appeal. The judgment is final.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Konin, Poland.
5.  On 5 October 1990 the applicant’s former wife instituted before the Konin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceedings in which she requested division of their matrimonial property. The applicant was a party to these proceedings.
6.  Until 19 January 1993 the court held several hearings and ordered the preparation of expert opinions.
7.  On 7 September 1993 the court held a hearing. Five further hearings were held prior to 7 December 1993.
8.  On 13 September 1994 the next hearing was held. In 1994 the District Court held in total four hearings.
9.  Between 7 January 1995 and 21 December 1995 no hearings were held. In 1996 the court held hearings in February, September and December.
10.  Subsequently the District Court held hearings at regular intervals. It held three hearings in 1997 and six in 1998.
11.  Between 4 March and 9 December 1999 no hearings were held.
12.  In 2000 the court held four hearings. On 24 March 2000 the Konin District Court gave a decision in which it divided the property in question.
13.  Both parties appealed against that decision.
14.  On 17 November 2000 the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing.
15.  On 1 December 2000 the Konin Regional Court dismissed the appeals. The reasoned decision was notified to the applicant on 6 February 2001. The decision was final as the domestic law did not provide for a possibility to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Dnepryany, the Kherson region. He is a former employee of the State-controlled OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).
5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005). The circumstances of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 11 January 2000 the Company's labour disputes commission (“the Commission,” комісія з трудових спорів ВАТ “Південелектромаш“) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 1,519[1] in salary arrears.
7.  On 19 January 2000 the Novа Kakhovka Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings for the above decision.
8.  On 10 January 2002 the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant an additional amount of UAH 3,193.70[2]. This judgment became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs.
9.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs returned the execution writs in respect of the judgment of 10 January 2002 to the applicant unenforced. They stated that the judgment could not be enforced for the debtor's lack of funds. They further advised the applicant of his right to resubmit these writs at any time, but until 26 July 2005. On 18 February 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writs and on 19 February 2004 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.
10.  As of 15 March 2006, the applicant was no. 4,916 in the creditors' waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the Commission's decision and no. 4,918 in respect of the enforcement of the court judgment. Both of them remain unenforced to present day.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow.
6.  On 11 September 1996 he was injured in a traffic accident. He was found to have suffered light bodily injury.
7.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant brought proceedings, in the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, for damages against an individual, who had been found guilty of causing the accident and subjected to administrative liability by a decision of the police of 26 September 1996.
8.  In letters dated 9 January and 2 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the lack of any developments in his case.
9.  On 6 July 1999 the District Court ordered the applicant's medical examination to be carried out by the Moscow City Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. The decision was not executed.
10.  On 11 January 2001 the District Court again ordered the applicant's medical examination by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow. Pursuant to this decision, the examination was carried out from 24 January to 9 February 2001. The experts' report of 9 February 2001 no. 8 stated that it would be possible to answer the questions put by the court only after the applicant's in-patient examination with a view to determine the causation between the accident on 11 September 1996 and his present health condition.
11.  On 28 June 2001 the District Court ordered the applicant's in-patient examination.
12.  On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered the expert assessment of the applicant's state of health and its connection with the accident, to be carried out by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow.
13.  Following the applicant's requests the District Court demanded various medical institutions to issue the applicant's medical records needed for the expert assessment.
14.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Court about the delay in the proceedings in his case.
15.  The applicant's expert medical examination ordered by the decision of the District Court of 20 January 2003 was carried out by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow from 16 March 2005 to 18 March 2005. The experts' report of 18 March 2005 no. 22 confirmed that the applicant had suffered light bodily injury in the accident on 11 September 1996 and that his present health condition had no connection with the accident.
16.  On 18 April 2005 the applicant submitted additional claims and the court adjourned the hearing to 4 May 2005 in order to allow the defendant to get acquainted with the new claims.
17.  On 4 May 2005 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow examined the case and delivered a judgment in which it granted the applicant's claims in part. It ordered the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in respect of the health damage, moral harm and costs.
18.  The applicant and the defendant appealed against the judgment.
19.  On 6 June 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment.
5.  The applicant, Mr Igor Volodymyrovych Pivnenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Oleksandriya, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicant became entitled to compensation for his uniform. As this compensation remained unpaid, in 2002 he instituted proceedings in the Dnipropetrovs'k Garrison Military Tribunal against his former employer, a military unit, seeking recovery of the debt.
8.  On 14 June 2002 the tribunal found for the applicant (Решение Военного суда Днепропетровского гарнизона) and awarded him UAH 3,377.17[1] for uniform and UAH 51[2] for court fees. The latter sum was paid to him, while the main judgment debt remains unpaid.
9.  By letter of 20 January 2004, the Dnipropetrovs'k Regional Department of Justice (Дніпропетровське обласне управління юстиції) informed the applicant that the remaining debt could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds.
10.  On 29 July 2004 the Bailiffs' Serivce (відділ державної виконавчої служби Центрально-Міського районного управління юстиції) returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.
7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Samara. She is a former chief tax inspector.
8.  On 27 August 1998 the applicant was committed to stand trial on charges of abuse of position and concerted extortion of a bribe.
9.  On 28 October 1998 the Samara Regional Court delivered its judgment. It found the applicant guilty of fraud committed in concert with another person through use of her official position, an offence under Article 159 § 2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 minimum wages (approximately EUR 5,000) and prohibited from holding any positions in tax authorities for three years.
10.  On 17 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. Counsel for the applicant was present at the hearing.
11.  As no ordinary appeal lay against the appeal judgment, counsel for the applicant introduced an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. He sought a reversal of the judgments passed in the applicant's case in order to redress the violations of the rights of the defence.
12.  On 24 February 2000 a deputy president of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory-review with the Presidium of that court. Although the text of the application has not been made available to the Court, it appears from the Government's submissions that he asked for a recharacterisation of the applicant's offence which, in his opinion, should be qualified as an attempt to commit fraud.
13.  On 24 May 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the application for supervisory review. The applicant and her counsel were not summoned to the hearing and did not attend it. The Presidium heard a report by the judge rapporteur and statements by a deputy Prosecutor General who spoke in support of the recharacterisation. The Presidium found that the offence imputed to the applicant had not been brought to completion. On that ground the Presidium recharacterised the applicant's offence as an attempt to commit fraud (Article 159 § 2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3). The applicant's sentence remained unaffected.
14.  On 29 May 2000 a copy of the Presidium's decision was mailed to the applicant.
7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.
8.  On 15 December 1997 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of kidnapping committed by a group of persons with the use of violence and of another minor offence. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
9.  On 7 May 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld, on appeal, the applicant's conviction of kidnapping but discontinued the prosecution in respect of the minor offence which had meanwhile become time-barred.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Moscow City Court for supervisory review of his conviction. By letter of 26 May 1999, the City Court rejected his request.
11.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant lodged a request for supervisory review with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
12.  On 19 October 1999 a deputy president of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory-review with the Presidium of the Moscow City Court. In his view, the applicant had been an accomplice to kidnapping rather than the actual doer and he had not resorted to violence.
13.  By letter of 27 October 1999, the applicant was notified about the introduction of the application for supervisory review. He was also told that he would be informed about the outcome of the proceedings.
14.  On 11 November 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined the application for supervisory review. The applicant was not invited to the hearing. The Moscow city prosecutor spoke before the Presidium in support of the proposed recharacterisation. The Presidium followed the proposal and found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to kidnapping without the use of violence (an offence under Article 126 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 33 § 5). The sentence remained unaffected.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bad Marienberg, Germany.
5.  Between December 1993 and 15 October 1998 the applicant was involved in divorce proceedings. On the latter date the proceedings were discontinued as the applicant had withdrawn his petition for divorce.
6.  On 5 November 1998 the applicant’s wife (“the petitioner”) lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a petition for divorce.
7.  It appears that the court held over twenty hearings. Some of the hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the petitioner or witnesses. The first hearing therefore was held on 4 February 2000. The court heard in total six witnesses.
8.  On 7 October 2004 the Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties appealed against the judgment.
9.  On 4 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the 2004 Act. On 28 February 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible. The court finally held that the case was complex.
10.  On 24 April 2006 the court rejected the petitioner’s appeal as she had failed to pay court fees.
11.  The appellate proceedings concerning the appeal lodged by the applicant are pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).
4.  The first applicant was born in 1941. They applicants live in Zallikon, Switzerland.
5.  On 14 September 1994 the applicants lodged with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action for payment. On 21 February 1995 that court decided that the Commercial Law Chamber of the Kielce Regional Court was competent to examine the case. Afterwards, the Commercial Law Chamber declined jurisdiction. Finally, on 7 June 1995 the President of the Kielce Regional Court decided that the case should be examined by the Civil Law Chamber.
6.  On 7 September 1995 and 24 January 1996 the Regional Court held hearings. Subsequently, it decided that expert opinions should be prepared.
7.  Between 19 September 1996 and 15 January 1997 the court held four hearings.
8.  On 4 April 1997 the court decided to commission another expert opinion. Subsequently, it held hearings in September, November and December 1997.
9.  On 19 January 1998 the court ordered that another expert opinion be prepared.
10.  On 20 March 1998 the court held a hearing.
11.  On 23 March 1998 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. They appealed against the judgment.
12.  On 10 November 1998 the Krakow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal.
13.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Koluszki, Poland.
5.  Between 1991 and 1993 the applicant was the Head of the Civic Gasification Committee of the “Łódzkie” housing co-operative (Społeczny Komitet Gazyfikacji “Os. Łódzkie”).
6.  In July 1995 the Board of the Koluszki Commune (Zarząd Miasta i Gminy) requested the prosecution service to initiate an investigation against the applicant for not returning documents concerning the Committee.
7.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant was charged with having hidden the documents.
8.  On 2 January 1996 the applicant was indicted before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
9.  On 9 May and 13 November 1996 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it gave a judgment in which it found that the applicant had committed the offence. The trial court conditionally discontinued the proceedings. The applicant was given a term of probation of one year and ordered to pay PLN 300 to a charity. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 23 September 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing and on 25 September 1997 it dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
11.  In May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
12.  On 9 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Brześć Kujawski, Poland.
5.  On 29 January 1985 the applicant initiated before the Włocławek District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceeding concerning the division of his late parents’ estate. The estate consisted of two plots of land, 16 hectares in area, and one house.
6.  Subsequently, the court held hearings and ordered expert opinions.
7.  In 1993 the court held hearings in June and November. Subsequently, the court ordered expert opinions and in September 1994 it stayed the proceedings. Upon the applicant’s appeal the proceedings were resumed on 5 June 1995. The next hearing was held in July 1996 but subsequent hearings were held at more regular intervals.
8.  Between September 1997 and March 1999 no hearings were held. During this period, the court ordered an expert opinion which was submitted in April 1998. A hearing scheduled for January 1999 was cancelled and took place in March 1999. Subsequently, the court ordered another expert opinion to be prepared and held the next hearing on 25 April 2000.
9.  At least on two occasions, in 1996 and 2000, the presiding judge changed and the proceedings had to start from the beginning.
10.  On 4 May 2000 the Włocławek District Court gave judgment. The court divided up the estate in question.
11.  A party to the proceedings lodged an appeal against the judgment.
12.  On 13 February 2001 the Włocławek Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 12 January 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of his membership in an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. On 29 January 1993 he was brought before a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his remand in custody.
6.  The public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, in his indictment dated 3 March 1993, accused the applicant and fifty other co‑accused of membership and/or aiding and abetting the PKK. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
7.  On 11 March 1993 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and fifty other co-accuseds commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The first hearing was scheduled for 14 April 1993.
8.  On 14 April 1993 the court heard some of the accused including the applicant, who denied the accusations against him. The court decided to request documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case-file and ordered the co-accused to be ready to submit their defence submissions at the next hearing.
9.  Between 14 April 1993 and 25 April 2000 the court held hearings at regular intervals. During this time at each hearing the court heard some of the accused and requested documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case-file. In the course of the proceedings, the public prosecutor filed additional indictments against some of the accused and therefore the court sought to obtain additional defence submissions from these persons. In the hearing held on 2 April 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The court decided to release the applicant pending trial. Following this date, the court adjourned the hearings partly on account of the failure of some of the co-accused, who were remanded in custody, to appear before the court. On 21 January 1997 and 26 February 1998 the court considered the possibility of disjoining the criminal proceedings if the case‑file could not be completed as regards some of the accused. At its hearing held on 28 April 1998 the court warned that it would decide in the absence of the accused if they were not present at the next hearing. However, no such decisions were taken by the court.
10.  On 25 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bjelovar.
5.  On 26 February 1992 the applicant's summer house in Velika Pisanica was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 24 February 1995 the applicant together with his wife brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 23 February 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 17 February 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 26 April 2004 it declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.
11.  The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It appears that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.
12.  Meanwhile, on 24 April 2002 the applicant, represented by an attorney, lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).